From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] How pmd virtio works without UIO?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:38:52 +0800
Message-ID: <20151223023852.GD1694@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <20151222035041.GA7532@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20151222070029.GO18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20151222082338.GG7532@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20151222083246.GT18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20151222095641.GH7532@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C551E48@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20151222113912.GA30780@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C552E28@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20151223015554.GC1694@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20151223020949.GV18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: DPDK Dev <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18959B62
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:39:05 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151223020949.GV18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:09:49AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> Why can't we simply quit at pci_scan_one, once finding that it's not
> bond to uio (or similar stuff)? That would be generic enough, that we
> don't have to do similar checks for each new pmd driver.
> 
> Or, am I missing something?

It seems that ioport way to play with virtio devices do not require
any PCI wrapper layer like UIO/VFIO? Please check
virtio_resource_init().

> 
> 
> > I guess there might be two problems? Which are:
> > 
> > 1. How user avoid DPDK taking over virtio devices that they do not
> >    want for IO (chooses which device to use)
> 
> Isn't that what's the 'binding/unbinding' for?
> 
> > 2. Driver conflict between virtio PMD in DPDK, and virtio-pci in
> >    kernel (happens on every virtio device that DPDK uses)
> 
> If you unbinded the kernel driver first, which is the suggested (or
> must?) way to use DPDK, that will not happen.

Yes, maybe we should unbind it first. I am just not sure what will
happen if not.

Peter